The Union government has told the Delhi High Court that the push to make air purifiers cheaper by first classifying them as “medical devices” could hurt availability by triggering extra compliance and limiting market entry. In its counter affidavit, the Centre has argued that such a move may “affect supply in a market already facing constraints,” as quoted by The Indian Express.

The affidavit filed through the Ministry of Finance on January 4 opposes a PIL by practising advocate Kapil Madan. It seeks to cut Goods and Services Tax (GST) on air purifiers from 19% to 5% by bringing them under the medical device category.

Medical device tag won’t decide GST rate, Centre argues

The petitioner has cited a 2020 Ministry of Health and Family Welfare notification issued under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act (DCA) to argue that air purifiers can be notified as medical devices. The Centre rejected this reference, stating that notifying a product as a medical device “has no nexus with, and cannot determine, the rate of GST applicable,” because GST rates fall under the GST regime and the GST Council’s recommendations, as reported by The Indian Express.

The air purifiers are classified under HSN 8421 and attract 18% GST, whereas many medical devices under HSN 9018-9022 hold 5% GST after the Council’s rationalisation exercise.

What is the Centre’s stance?

The Centre has restated that the GST Council, which was set under Article 279A, is the only constitutional body empowered to recommend GST rates, classifications, and exemptions. The court-led directions would violate the separation of powers and upset cooperative federalism. The government cautioned that “if courts were to issue directions on GST rates or compel specific recommendations, the GST Council would be reduced to a mere rubber stamp,” as quoted by The Indian Express.

As per a report by ANI, the Centre pointed to the institutional process for GST changes, including scrutiny by the Fitment Committee. It has also been suggested to consider the PIL as a representation to the GST Council Secretariat. The petitioner did not accept this option. The affidavit also claimed that the PIL is “colourable and motivated,” arguing the real aim is regulatory reclassification that could benefit a limited set of players. The High Court has listed the matter for further hearing on January 9, 2026.

Source: The Financial Express